Homa Keshavarz

Screening for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care has a guideline on screening for depression among adults 18 years of age or older at average or high risk for depression. To provide evidence for an update of this guideline, we evaluated the literature on the effectiveness of screening for depression in adults. METHODS For the period 1994 to May 23, 2012, we searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Randomized controlled trials, observational studies and systematic reviews with evidence for the benefits or harms of screening for depression were eligible for inclusion. We performed screening for relevance, extraction of data, analysis of risk of bias and quality assessments in duplicate. We used the generic inverse variance method to conduct a meta-analysis. To determine confidence in the effect, we analyzed the results according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. RESULTS Five quasi-experimental studies (before-after design with a nonrandomized control group) met the inclusion criteria for this review. These studies reported on the effect of community-based screening for depression, with follow-up on the risk of suicide completion, for older residents in regions of rural Japan with high suicide rates. Meta-analysis showed that the screening program had a protective effect on the overall incidence of suicide completion (ratio of rate ratios [RRR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.78). When sex was considered, the RRR indicated a significantly lower rate of suicide among women (RRR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21-0.66) but not among men (RRR 0.67, 95% CI 0.35-1.27). The overall GRADE rating applied to this evidence indicated very low quality. No studies addressing the harms of screening for depression met the inclusion criteria for the review. INTERPRETATION There is very limited research evidence allowing conclusions about the effectiveness of screening for depression in either average-risk or high-risk populations.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of collaborative care interventions for depression in patients with cancer.

Previous systematic reviews have found limited evidence for the effectiveness of pharmacological and psychological interventions for the management of depression in patients with cancer. This paper provides the first meta‐analysis of newer collaborative care interventions, which may include both types of treatment, as well as integrated delivery and follow‐up. Meta‐analyses of pharmacological and psychological interventions are included as a comparison.

A Description of the Methodology Used in an Overview of Reviews to Evaluate Evidence on the Treatment, Harms, Diagnosis/Classification, Prognosis and Outcomes Used in the Management of Neck Pain

Background: Neck Pain (NP) is a common musculoskeletal disorder and the literature provides conflicting evidence about its management. Objective: To describe the methodology used to conduct an overview of reviews (OvR) and to characterize the distribution and risk of bias profiles across the evidence for all areas of NP management. Methods: Standard systematic review (SR) methodology was employed. MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ILC, Cochrane CENTRAL, and LILACS were searched from 2000 to March 2012; Narrative and SR and clinical practice guidelines (CPG) evaluating the efficacy of treatment (benefits and harms), diagnosis/classification, prognosis, and outcomes were eligible. For treatment, articles were limited to SRs from 2005 forward. Risk of bias of SR was assessed with the AMSTAR; the AGREE II was used to critically appraise the CPGs. Results: From 2476 articles, 508 were eligible for full text screening. A total of 341 articles were included. Treatment (n=117) had the greatest yield. Other clinical areas had less literature (diagnosis=54, prognosis=16, outcomes=27, harms=16). There were no SR for classification and narrative reviews were problematic for this topic. There was great overlap across different databases within each clinical area except for those for outcome measures. Risk of bias assessment using the AMSTAR of eligible SRs showed a similar trend across different clinical areas. Conclusion: A summary of methods used to review the literature in five clinical areas of NP management have been described. The challenges of selecting and synthesizing eligible articles in an OvR required customized solutions across different areas of clinical focus.

Management of Depression in Patients With Cancer: A Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE This report updates the Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-Based Care guideline for the management of depression in adult patients with cancer. This guideline covers pharmacologic, psychological, and collaborative care interventions, with a focus on integrating practical management tools to assist clinicians in delivering appropriate treatments for depression in patients with cancer. METHODS Recommendations were developed by synthesizing information from extant guidelines and reviews and searching for randomized controlled trials from the date of database inception (1964 for MEDLINE and 1974 for EMBASE) to January 2015. Quality assessment of guidelines and systematic reviews were conducted by using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II), Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and Cochrane Risk of Bias tools. Final recommendations were developed through a standardized Program in Evidence-Based Care multidisciplinary expert and knowledge user review process. RESULTS Two high-quality relevant clinical practice guidelines, eight pharmacologic trials, nine psychological trials, and eight collaborative care intervention trials composed the evidence base upon which the recommendations were developed. Eight specific recommendations were made to establish a standard of care for the management of depression in patients with cancer. The recommendations and practical management tools were reviewed as being well organized and helpful, although systemic barriers to implementation were identified. CONCLUSION This updated guideline supports the previous general recommendation that patients with cancer who have depression may benefit from psychological and/or pharmacologic interventions, without evidence for the superiority of any specific treatment over another. New recommendations for a collaborative care model that incorporates a stepped care approach suggest that multidisciplinary mental health care restructuring may be required for optimal management of depression.

Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Failed Antidepressant Treatment Response in Major Depressive Disorder, Dysthymia, and Subthreshold Depression in Adults:

Objective: This systematic review critically evaluated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for treating adults with major depressive disorder, dysthymia, or subthreshold or minor depression for recommendations following inadequate response to first-line treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Method: Searches for CPGs (January 2004 to November 2014) in English included 7 bibliographic databases and grey literature sources using CPG and depression as the keywords. Two raters selected CPGs on depression with a national scope. Data extraction included definitions of adequate response and recommended treatment options. Two raters assessed quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Results: From 46,908 citations, 3167 were screened at full text. From these 21 CPG were applicable to adults in primary care and outpatient settings. Five CPGs consider patients with dysthymia or subthreshold or minor depression. None provides recommendations for those who do not respond to first-line SSRI treatment. For adults with MDD, most CPGs do not define an “inadequate response” or provide specific suggestions regarding how to choose alternative medications when switching to an alternative antidepressant. There is variability between CPGs in recommending combination strategies. AGREE II ratings for stakeholder involvement in CPG development, editorial independence, and rigor of development are domains in which depression guidelines are often less robust. Conclusions: About half of patients with depression require second-line treatment to achieve remission. Consistency and clarity in guidelines for second-line treatment of depression are therefore important for clinicians but lacking in most current guidelines. This may reflect a paucity of primary studies upon which to base conclusions.